David Copperfield is not an easy one to film because the story -- while unfailingly interesting -- does have some of Dickens' most cloying sentimentality and sugary sweetness. David himself is saintly, and this makes him hard to play as an interesting character. In fact, playing the young hero in period dramas can easily be something of a poisoned chalice. (Other adaptations of recent years have come unstuck on this point.) However, this works out fine here. A very small Daniel Radcliffe is excellent as Harry P-- sorry, as young David, and I think that Ciarán McMenamin is also good as the adult David. I don't agree with those reviewers who call him smug. It's a shame that he looks nothing, but nothing, like Daniel Radcliffe, and the hairstyles he is given are really bad, especially the wig towards the end. Of course, he is inevitably somewhat overshadowed by the galaxy of top-notch actors who fill the other roles. Maggie Smith is particularly winsome as Betsy Trotwood.

I watched this with my eleven-year-old son and we both really enjoyed it. Recommended.

This version of David Copperfield rivals the classic 1935 version, which starred Freddie Bartholomew as David, and W. C. Fields as Mr. Micawber.

Dickens' great strength as an author was characterization, and Director Simon Curtis transforms this strength onto the screen. Even the most minor supporting characters are portrayed well.

In the major roles, Daniel Radcliffe as the young David is outstanding. (Of course, he has gone on to star as Harry Potter.)

Bob Hoskins is excellent as Micawber, Amanda Ryan portrays Agnes Wickfield beautifully, and Ian McNeice as Mr. Dick and Nicholas Lyndhurst as Uriah Heep are perfect.

For me, however, the true star of the movie is Dame Maggie Smith as Aunt Betsy Trotwood. Dame Maggie was born to play this role, and every frame in which she appears is a pleasure to watch.

This movie presents Dickens in the way Dickens was meant to be seen on the screen. Bravo!

I thoroughly enjoyed this adaptation of Dickens's book, and yes I preferred it over the 2000 version. Is it true to Dickens's work? It is reasonably, though the book isn't particularly easy to adapt at all, then again what Dickens book is? Even if there are any flaws such as it being a tad too long, it is completely compensated by the production values, music and the quality of the acting. The production values are superb, like in Bleak House and Little Dorritt, the sets are realistic-looking, the scenery breathtaking and the costumes sumptuous. The direction is also good, and sticks to the time period and the situations likely to happen during that period. The script is above decent, and does a more than acceptable job in adapting the book, and the music is lovely.

And of course the acting is exceptional. I was compelled to write a separate paragraph as there are so many performances I wish to acknowledge. Daniel Radcliffe is simply adorable as young David, and acts being vulnerable very convincingly. I don't know about anybody else but I think this is the best I've seen Daniel act. Maggie Smith was simply born for the role of Aunt Betsy Trotwood, and Trevor Eve is a chilling and vile Mr Murdstone. I also loved Bob Hoskins as the debt ridden but kindly Micawber, Zoe Wannamaker as Jane Murdstone, Pauline Quirke as maternal Pegotty and Amanda Ryan as the alluring Agnes Wickfield. Also worth of mention are Allun Armstrong as Daniel Pegotty, Ian McKellen as the sinister Creakle(a character I found disappointingly forgettable in the 2000 version) and especially Nicolas Lyndhurst as the snake-like and odious Uriah Heep.

Overall, I loved this 1999 adaptation for especially the acting. 10/10 Bethany Cox